The historic action of the Vatican to bring some order to the ex-Pontifical ex-Catholic University of Peru (the former PUCP - see first post) is a gift that keeps on giving. La Stampa's Andrés Beltramo Álvarez reports that, when the Vatican decree removing the titles from the name of the University was handed by the local Nuncio (Pennsylvanian Archbishop James Green) to several authorities on Friday, the document was accompanied by a specific letter to the University rector and, which is more impressive, by a specific letter to the President of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, to be forwarded to each bishop in the country.

Because in fact the Archbishop of Lima, Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, had spent the last few years almost isolated by his own peers and undermined by most members of the Episcopal Conference in his efforts to rein in and put under control the rebellious university. As Beltramo reports:

The Peruvian Episcopal Conference must not be manipulated by the "rebellious university". On the contrary, [the Conference] is called to lend "determined and clear" support to the determinations of the Holy See in the dispute for the legitimate property of the institution, until yesterday Pontifical and Catholic. This is the center of a letter sent by the Vatican to the President of the South American country's bishops, Salvador Piñeiro. A harsh wake-up call, in order to cease with the ambiguities and the foul play.

...
Green ordered that all three documents, including the letter to Piñeiro, be sent to all the bishops in the country. He received the authorities of the PUCP later in the Nunciature, and delivered to them the decree and the letter.

The message from Rome to the Archbishop of Ayacucho-Huamanga [Abp. Piñeiro] left little room for doubts: "For the good of the University and for the responsibility of the Church in the educational field, this Episcopal Conference must support the position of the Holy See and of the Archbishop of Lima, disavowing vigorously any opposing intervention and inviting the country's episcopate to a loyal collegial action. In case of eventual doubts, you and the other bishops please be kind enough to consult with the Rev. Nuncio in Lima."

And it added: "The Holy Father expects that, in the future, the Episcopal Conference will render determined and clear support to the decisions taken by the Holy See regarding the situation of the PUCP, and that new misunderstandings and divisions be avoided."

The severity of the words left clear that, instead of keeping an institutional position, the direction of the bishops sided with the center of studies during the disputed. Even when the rebellion of its authorities was open and manifest.

This was made clear on April 17, when the Conference published a public note in the name of its five delegate bishops of the University Assembly of the PUCP. ... This episode was called "regrettable" by the Vatican letter to Piñeiro, which was blunt: "I ask you to take care that this Episcopal Conference avoid being manipulated by the rectorate of the university."

The rector of the PUCP, Marcial Rubio, called the decision of the Vatican of stripping the center of studies of the titles of "pontifical" and "Catholic" regrettable ... . ...

"This is our official name, and we are recognized nationally and internationally by it. We have the full right to keep using it for as long as we consider it convenient. Any decision that is taken about it is of the responsibility of the ruling bodies of the university itself," he added.

The former PUCP is the academic alma mater of Liberation Theology (the expression itself was coined by its most famous theology professor, Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez).

Given the defiance displayed by the Rector of the University, an attitude that is probably shared with the other officers and internal governing bodies of the University, a defiance that can have negative repercussions regarding the execution of the necessary alterations in the University's Statutes (who can amend them?) to alter the University's name, the following statement of the Holy See, contained in yesterday's communiqué of the Holy See Press Office, becomes all important:

Let us hope that the Civilian Courts of Peru indeed recognize the right of the Church, by means of the Archdiocese of Lima, to control the administration of the University's patrimony.

Let us hope that the same civil Courts recognize that the said university cannot call itself Pontifical or Catholic without approval from the Holy See.

Otherwise, what would keep me from founding the Peruvian University, or the Royal Canadian University?

But the attitude of the Rectory makes it plainly clear that voluntary, spontaneous compliance, will simply not take place. The Holy See and the Archdiocese of Lima will have to fight, will have to litigate in the Peruvian civil Courts, to make effective the removal of the titles "Catholic" and "Pontifical" from the University's name.

The Articles contain explicit references not only to the University's status in civil law and its civil erection as a nonprofit association recognized by the State as an autonomous university of national significance, but also to the PUCP canonical status as a public juridical person of the Church, and to its canonical erection, and the rights and duties that flow from that canonical erection as an ecclesiastical legal entity.

However, under the Articles (art. 155), amendments to the Statutes can only be passed by an internal body known as the "University Assembly". That Assembly can only convene to decide amendments when two thirds of its legal members are present. "Normal" amendments need to be passed by a positive vote of three fifths of the legal members of the Assembly.

However, amendments to the Articles required in virtue of norms issued by the Peruvian State or by the Church need the vote of half plus one of the legal members of the Assembly.

The present text of the Articles was adopted in 2011. We know from the Holy See Press Office communiqué that, apart from refusing to implement the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae since 1990, the University has also been making unilateral changes to its Articles of Association since 1967, without ecclesiastical approval.

We of course do not know exactly which parts of the 2011 Articles of Association are effective, given the ongoing litigation between the Church and the University in the civil law courts of Peru, and the decisions already rendered in favor of the Church.

That is correct, Bob, but it was in 1986 - after the 1967 statutes's modifications, but long before the showdown that began with the insubordination of the university to direct orders from Cardinal Cipriani, Archbishop of Lima since 1999, as well as almost immediately after the groundbreaking 1984 CDF on Liberation Theology, and on the year following the historic notification on Leonardo Boff's writings. Under those circumstances, being awarded an honorary degree could conceivably be interpreted by any observer as the University's acceptance of the authority of the Holy See in a very sensitive matter - all while a Liberation-theology-inspired Maoist guerrilla killed thousands in the Peruvian countryside.

The relationship of Abp. Müller with the PUCP has been very different, of an intimate kind: the university was visited at least once every year by Müller, who has never denied being a great admirer, and perhaps follower, of its favorite son, Fr. Gutiérrez, and it continued, and increased, even while Cardinal Cipriani Thorne was trying to put the university back under the control of the Church.

I'm not gloating, but cheers to the Vatican for taking such measures. My concern is why it took so long, and actually what was the tipping point in this matter? There is so much other BS going on in the Church unabated. Why no crack-down on them? How about a one, two to the anti-TLM gangs?

It's also interesting as to whether this was the Holy Father's round-about way of telling Müller to watch his step, especially since this affected Müller big time: his mentor, his theology and his droll school. Did all of our blogging about Müller catch the Holy Father's attention, fill in some gaps he may have been unaware of of Müller?

Prof. Basto said, "Given the defiance displayed by the Rector of the University, an attitude probably shared with the other officers and internal governing bodies of the University... The attitude of the Rectory makes it plainly clear that voluntary, spontaneous compliance, will simply not take place. The Holy See and the Archdiocese of Lima will have to fight, will have to litigate in the Peruvian civil Courts, to make effective the removal of the titles "Catholic" and "Pontifical" from the University's name."

If this becomes a protracted fight, I have a feeling the Church is going to back down. Some "mutual agreement" is suddenly going to pop up and Anarchist U will maintain its status quo. This won't be the first time the Church has backed down from a fight however noble.

At the very least this will send a signal to all the other "Devil Universities" here in the Americas and beyond. Well done. Cardinal Ratzinger had to revisit putting in its place Liberation Theology a second time.

Liberation Theology had a huge impact in Latin American everyday life in the 70s and early 80s. All of a sudden the continent filled with "Worker Priests" or Curas Obreros. They tilled the soil for Marxist Guerrillas such as the Tupamaros in Uruguay, Montoneros in Argentina, Abp. Helder Camêra in Recife Brazil, and Shining Path in Peru. Decades of civil war followed. Mixing Marxism and Catholicism is very dangerous, it gets lots of people killed. And the "Universidad del Diablo" led the way with their shining path of choosing to side with the poor at every step.

Universities were a purely Catholic invention as most of you know. The Church has always been on the side of Reason which, as Benedict XVI teaches us, also means Logos or Word in Greek. " In principio erat Verbum.. Et Verbum Caro factum est". This is in our last Gospel at every Mass.

Some universities were designated Pontifical, which had the precise meaning that they would be under the legal protection of Canonical Jurisprudence in cases of confrontations between cap and town. In all Universities teaching was in Latin and those who obtained a "Master" degree were habilitated to teach throughout Christendom.

The Peruvian Marxists mat not change their name, but this is a very important fight worth having. Are disobedient Jesuits listening?

The fight will pertain to 2 things:- The rights of the Pope and the Church to own the titles "Pontifical" and "Catholic"

- How doctrine governs those rights.

The first thing has been clearly annunciated in the declaration.

The second will be driven by the CDF, whose new leader is sympathetic to the revolutionaries. The 2nd one trumps the first in fact because doctrine determines the right. And the 2nd can also force a re-evaluation of the 1st.

Thus this becomes the first real sniff test as to how + Muller will impact the application of doctrine.

Will he commandeer a softening doctrinal stance against Liberation Theology? Which can overturn the current decision against the non-PC UP?

In fact, a gloomy perspective of what is going on here could be that + Muller may be forcing the showdown to publicize a new softened stance towards liberationism.

To achieve this, the "hard stance" is made to happen because this is the best way to make a "new stance" public and universal.

In short, I believe it prudent for Catholics - in the spirit that the Lord commmanded to us to be "wise as serpents" - that there may be much brewing under the surface and the outcome is not guaranteed to be good.

Only the Rosary will give us the security we are hoping for.

As others have stated, where this goes will determine if the Holy See will truly go after other ex-Catholic diabolical universities.

The University Assembly of PUCP (under the Articles of Association, the body empowered to amend the said Articles), has met yesterday, but it has refused to comply with the decree of the Holy See. Instead, it has issued the following communiqué, "deploring" Rome's action (in Spanish - source: The University's website):

Now, we are set for a legal confrontation that will test the efficacy, in Civil Law (at least in Peru; but surely this is being watched all over the world), of the Holy See's decision to strip an institution of its titles of "Pontifical" and "Catholic" that form part of the corporate name under which it is registered before the State Registrar of Juridical Persons.

This confrontation will test the interactions between Civil Law and Canon Law, interaction upon which the protection of the rights of the Church over its patrimony often depends.

And such a confrontation will unfortunately take place against an university that has been allowed with impunity to unilaterally modify its Articles of Association, without the approval of the Church, for the last 45 years, since 1967.

Given that the PUCP has unilaterally altered its Articles of Association since 1967, I'm left to wonder if the pre-1967 Articles conditioned the validity of any alteration to the approval of the ecclesiastical authorities. If such a condidion existed, then the original 1967 amendments, and any future unilateral amendments (including any possible amendment changing the amending procedure itself to exclude references to the role of the Church in approving the alterations), are invalid.

Of course, it may well be, given the more than forty years elapsed since 1967, that the matter is now covered by prescription (an institution of civil law systems that closely resembles the statute of limitations of common law jurisdictions) - given the Church's inertia, when She should have acted quickly after the PUCP took the grave step of amending the statutes unilaterally.

But perhaps the Courts of Peru will find some reason not to apply prescription. PUCP's invokation of alleged prescription under a ten year time limit was not upheld in recent litigation that opposed PUCP and the Church over an endowment, and over the invalidity of an "internal agreement" of the endowment's Administration Junta, dated from 1994, that harmed the rights of the Church.

And the present Articles of Association, in any case, still recognize PUCP's canonical personality alongside its civil personality.

Even the simplified revision procedure of the Articles exists not only to adapt the Articles to new requirements of the norms of the State, but also to adapt them to the norms of the Church.

Of course, adapting to the norms of the State is not an option; in like fashion, one could claim that given PUCP's own recognition, in its Articles of Association, of its canonical personality and of the rights and duties that flow from it, that, then, adaptation to the demands of the law of the Church is also not an option.

***************

Finally, I'm left with a sense that PUCP only felt emboldened to defy the Holy See over the implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae because the Church herself had turned a blind eye to the unilateral alterations of the Articles of Association since 1967.

The norms of canonical erection required ecclesiastical approval of the Articles and its amendments, but that norm of canon law was ignored, so the PUCP validated its impression that the canonical legal order was not serious, that any canonical obligations were fake, a fantasy, not enforceable. Like a teenager that tests and challenges the parents to see if they will enforce the rules. For decades after 1967, the socialists governing PUCP were lead to believe that the Church would never enforce its rules.

They were so confident in that view, so emboldened by the past experience, that they decided to defy the Church even further, by refusing to implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae. And over the next twenty years, it worked, as they succeeded in playing for time. They asked for more time, always in bad faith, always knowing that they would never obey, and the Holy See, without willpower to enforce its authority, or perhaps out of naïveté, granted them more time. Until they managed to reach the limits of Pope Benedict's patience, resulting in last week's historical action.

Let's hope that the Holy See has the courage to get to the bottom of this, now that it decided to act.

The Peruvian daily "El Comercio" published (http://elcomercio.pe/actualidad/1444655/noticia-lee-carta-que-vaticano-envio-al-rector-pucp) the text of a Letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State that was sent to PUCP's Rector together with the decree concerning the suppression of the names "Pontifical" and "Catholic".

This cover letter contains a paragraph stating:

Since that last date [1967], the authorities of the said University, without the prior and necessary approval of the Holy See, have effected multiple and substantial alterations in the same [Articles of Association], damaging gravely the rights of the Church. In light of the Agreement in force between Peru and the Holy See, and of Canon Law, we consider that the said modifications are illegitimate and that by them the Church is being spoliated.

Full text of the cover letter that was sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State together with the decree that removed from PUCP the titles Pontifical and Catholic.

The letter deals with the unilateral changes to the Articles of Association and with the attempts of the PUCP officers to remove the Church from its governance. PUCP's actions are described as "arbitrary" and as having the goal of seeing the Church "renounce her legitimate rights in the (field of) service to Catholic Education".